American Health Act of 2017 (AHCA)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has improved the lives of millions of Americans by providing access to affordable health insurance. Many of these individuals did not have work or had occupations that paid little. Some people were unable to work due to health reasons or personal commitments. However, the proposed American Health Act (AHCA) of 2017 has some disadvantages that will adversely affect American citizens’ health (Gamage & Shanske, 2017). The penalties and the older paying more are just some of the disadvantages of this Act. It is clear that the AHCA’s goals are not compatible with my thinking because:

1. I disagree with changing the age-dependent subsidy to depend on income.
2. I disagree with AHCA’s proposed measures to impose fines.
3. I disagree with the policy of providing Medicaid funding to states in lump sums.

The AHCA’s goal of expanding health insurance to more Americans is one that I fully endorse. This vision is in challenging if the recommendations in the policy are implemented. For one, many individuals would not be covered when the subsidiary is relocated to age. Low-income people will be hit the hardest since health insurance will be out of their budget range. It might end up being costly to penalize uninsured citizens. For example, if a person joins for insurance two months after the first open enrollment period, he may be required to pay up to 30% more in premiums during the first year (Gamage & Shanske, 2017, p.580). This plan would force governments to overspend in an emergency, even with a limited budget. As a result, the scope of obligatory services that governments may provide to their residents will be constrained by this legislation. People in the country would have to deal with complex and costly health insurance plans. The states would be put in a tricky situation when deciding which emergencies to fund.

Rationale Behind the Leave Behind

Expanding eligibility by linking the payment to age will create an additional issue. The fact that a portion of low-income taxpayers’ taxes would be allocated to this insurance contributed to the ACA’s victory. They were nonetheless covered by insurance despite the unfavorable conditions in the plan. It would primarily affect the old and those living in regions where insurance tends to be costly. Premiums may be up to five times as much for those who are elderly as those who are younger (Gamage & Shanske, 2017). As a result of the tax credit, organizations may decide to stop providing coverage to their workers, and employees may get fewer benefits from having employer-provided insurance. In rural places, the expense of accessing excellent health care is expensive, making it hard for senators to sell it to their residents. In return, this tendency makes the population mainly depend on low-income assistance. Many people may be badly affected by the AHCA’s provisions for pre-existing diseases.

People raised objections when it became clear that AHCA would have to be funded partly by increasing taxes and insurance premiums. Others in the healthcare sector were unhappy with the increased demands on medical professionals and the associated expenditures (Gamage & Shanske, 2017). They were concerned that it might lower standards of medical treatment. The lack of an alternative penalization approach is another argument against the enactment of the AHCA. However, the corrections industry did not undergo the dramatic shifts widely predicted. Instead of eliminating the ACA penalty, it simply reinstated it under a new structure. Medicaid financing to states is another barrier, and due to this, inadequate finance will become an issue. Consider the case of overuse of insurance for the disabled. Due to this budget shortfall, governments will cut services or raise taxes.

Federal spending for Medicaid will be drastically reduced under the AHCA, thus affecting the quality of health services. Lowering the tax penalty for persons who do not have health insurance will increase the number of people who do not have coverage (Commonwealth Fund, 2019). It is anticipated that individual health insurance coverage will decrease and government expenditure on health insurance subsidies will decrease due to changes to premium tax credits and widening rate discrepancies based on age. The AHCA is structured to have tax savings take effect before cutbacks in health coverage subsidies.

The Visit to the Congressman

Several concerns left unaddressed by AHCA inspired me to visit Vern Buchanan, the congressman of Florida. I want to talk to him about the AHCA policy and why I do not support it. I also wanted to hear his opinion on the proposed policy and narrate how my nursing profession influences my position on AHCA policy. Vern Buchanan was in agreement that the proposed bill was not good for American citizens. He stated that the financing mechanism in the bill was unlikely to match with most states’ expenditure on increased, high-cost elderly and disabled groups, especially over time. New expenses linked with revolutionary medications and therapies, growing labor market expenditures, and demographic changes would no longer be reflected in federal Medicaid funding (Ku et al., 2017). He realized that the policy would adversely affect women’s health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) advocates for equality in the provision of health, and thus, AHCA would go against this fight for women’s rights. The AHCA would prevent reimbursements for family planning, pap smears, and cancer-preventative care. Removing family planning funding will likely increase the number of unwanted pregnancies nationwide.

I explained to the congressman why I objected to the AHCA policy. The bill’s approval would ultimately lead to the oppression of the minority, which is shocking. It is mainly because most of its suggestions are aimed towards fostering inequity. The plan targets female citizens to lower federal spending on healthcare (Ku et al., 2017). To begin, the worst impacted will be those who do not have healthcare coverage through their workplace. In my role as a nurse, I interact with various patients. I have worked as a nurse for over 19 years and have experience in medicare home care and case management. The AHCA policy will lead to financial constraints among the American population, especially the poor. It is unlikely that many have the resources to pay for their medical care from their pocket. Employers that do not provide health insurance for their employees may find it challenging to fulfill this unexpected demand. Instead of seeking medical help, people prioritize meeting their fundamental requirements, such as food and shelter.

It will have a disproportionately negative impact on low-income women. The proposed legislation would reduce funding for Medicaid and family planning while removing the requirement that Medicaid covers the cost of maternity services. It may encourage women to have riskier deliveries, which would, in turn, increase the death rate. The bill’s elimination of funding for maternity care is a significant reason I cannot support it. AHCA will adversely impact many women’s health, leading to death (Eibner et al., 2017). Most people are financially unable to pay for prenatal care without health insurance. Stealing, abortions, and murders tend to rise in societies under severe stress. I must take a clear stance against this plan to prevent these events. Since the AHCA would allow states to bridge financing mechanisms across populations, there would be pressure to restrict care for low-income Medicare patients. Since the AHCA would allow states to bridge financing mechanisms across people, there would be pressure to limit care for low-income patients.

I also believe that insurance should be determined by the income earned by an individual and not their age. Considering income ensures that the more significant part of the population is considered in the medication plan (Eibner et al., 2017). Age insurance covers children, but it will be expensive as they grow. Therefore, the government will be required to pay for the population not paying for insurance. Thus, the AHCA policy will be a financial gamble that may harm the health sector. Another reason for not supporting AHCA is the distribution of the Medicaid fund. When the federal government distributes the funds, medical funds are available to address unexpected events in the healthcare sector. However, the bill counters this action by suggesting the distribution of this money all at once. Due to this, if a state receives health funding from the federal government, it will not be eligible for any subsidy. It might cripple healthcare services, leading to increased mortality from emergency cases.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Women’s health. Web.

Commonwealth Fund. (2019). AHCA economic and employment consequences for states. Web.

Eibner, C., Liu, J. L., & Nowak, S. (2017). The effects of the American Health Care Act on health insurance coverage and federal spending in 2020 and 2026. RAND Corporation.

Gamage, D., & Shanske, D. (2017). The American health care act would toss the states a hot potato. Academic Perspectives on Salt, 84(6), 579–582. Web.

Ku, L., Steinmetz, E., Brantley, E., Holla, N., & Bruen, B. K. (2017). The American health care act: Economic and employment consequences for states. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund), 17, 1–19. Web.